Is Thierry of Autun the same person as Makhir?
Alan B. Wilson
(Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
52. Thierry (Theoderic) of Autun Count (Circa 730 - 804)
& Aude \ Aldana (Circa 732 - 804), dau. of Karl Martel
53. William I of Toulouse Count (Circa 765 - 28 May 812)
& Kunigunde
54. Bernard I of Autun Count (Circa 795 - 844)
& Dhuoda ( - After 2 Feb 843)
55. Regelinde of Agen Countess (Circa 830 - )
& Wulgrin I of Angouleme (Circa 815 - 3 May 886)
56. William II of Perigueux Count (Circa 864 - Circa 918)
& Regilinde (Circa 864 - )
57. Emma de Perigeuex comtesse (Circa 905 - )
& Boso I de la Marche Count (Circa 905 - After 975)
58. Adalbert I de la Marche Count (Circa 945 - 997)
& ? Aisceline de Limoges (Circa 950 - Before 997)
59. Bernard I de la Marche (Circa 986 - 1047)
& Amelia de Montignac (Circa 990 - 1072)
60. Almodis de la Marche (Circa 990 - 17 Nov 1075)
& Pons II Wiliam of Toulouse Count (990 - Circa 1061)
61. William IV of Toulouse Count (1040 - 1094)
& Emma de Mortaigne (Circa 1058 - )
62. Philippa \ Maud de Toulouse (Circa 1073 - 28 Nov 1117)
& William IX of Aquitaine Duke (22 Oct 1071 - 10 Feb 1126/1127)
63. Guillaume X of Aquitaine Duke (1099 - 9 Apr 1137)
& Eleanor de Chatellerault ( - After Mar 1130)
64. Eleanor of Aquitaine Duchess (1122 - 31 Mar 1204)
& Henry II "Curt Mantel" of England King (5 Mar 1132/1133 - 8 Jul 1189)
The above line of descent can be traced in Schwennicke
(ed.) Europaische Stammtafeln, following volume and table
numbers by the generation numbers used above in parentheses:
iii, 731 (52-55); iii, 817 (55-57); iii, 819 (57-60); iii, 773
(58); iii, 763 (60-62); ii, 76 (62-64); ii, 82-83 (64). The
same line of descent can be traced in Moriarty, The Plantagenet
Ancestry, following his page numbers by generation numbers:
213-215 & 232 (52-55); 43 (55-57); 42 (57-62); 36 (62-64); 2
(64).
Lines of descent from Thierry can also be traced to
royal families of France, Aragon, Castile, Barcelona, Leon, and
Navarre as well as England; to noble and gentle families such as
Ferrers, Mortimer, Neville, Clifford, Audley, Lusignan, Percy,
Berkeley, Beauchamp, Taillifer; as well, of course, to many
immigrants to the American colonies and United States.
Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
matters."
I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
"authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
*If* they are the same person, we could start a genealogical line:
1. David, King of Israel {ca 1010 - 970 B.C.} & Bath-Sheba
2. Solomon, King of Israel {967 - 928 B.C.} & Naamah, the Ammonitess
3. Rehoboam, King of Judah {ca 928 - 911 B.C.}
4. Abijah, King of Judah {ca 914-912 B.C.} & Maacah
5. Asa, King of Judah {ca 908 - 867 B.C.} & Azubah
. . . . . . .
50. Natronai bar Nehemiah, [liv. 719 - 730]
51. Habibai (ca 700 - )
52. Makhir \ Thierry, Count of Autun (ca 730 - 804) & Aude
Wouldn't that be fun? :)
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Nathaniel Lane Taylor
> A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
>
> Anthony Wagner in "Pedigree and Progress" (1975) has a
> brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> matters."
>
> I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
>
Alan,
To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
should at least read Kelley and Robert Charles Anderson, "Holy Blood,
Holy Grail: Two Reviews," _The Genealogist_ 3 (1982), 249-263, where
Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
(Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
informative.
Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
Nat Taylor
ste...@baldar.clark.net
In "Royal Highness," by Sir Ian Moncrieffe, there is a teasing
mention that the royal lads may be descended from the House of
David via Theuderic, Duke of Toulouse (d. 793), an ancestor of
Arnaud "manzer", Count of Angouleme (d. 1001). Manzer is assumed
to be a variant of a Hebrew word "mamzer," being the child of a
Jew and a Christian. Moncrieffe feels that Zuckerman has made
a good case for Makhir/Theuderic.
Meanwhile, I can't figure out who this "Guillem de Gellone' is
the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" babbles on about.
Don Stone
I have been commenting on the number of generations from King
David. What I didn't realize in my last posting was that the
exilarch who said that there were 70 generations between him
and King David was Hisdai, son of Bostanai. Goode (1940-41,
pp. 155-6) mistakenly says that this Hisdai, son of Bostanai,
was the son of Bostanai's Jewish first wife, placing him too
early in time and saying he died without an heir. Hisdai was
actually a son of Bostanai by his Persian second wife, had
several children, and succeeded his older half-brother,
Haninai bar 'Adoi, as exilarch, serving early in the eighth
century. See Kelley (1982, p. 255) and the list of exilarchs
from Neubauer's Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, vol. 1, p. 196,
as quoted (though not properly interpreted) in The Jewish
Encyclopedia 1903, vol. 5, p. 290.
This Hisdai, son of Bostanai, is thus the exilarch whose
conversation was reported by Ibn Lahi'a: Hisdai said that
"between King David and me there is an interval of seventy
generations" and said to his Arab listener that "between you
and your prophet there is only one generation"; Hisdai then
goes on to call Husain a son (rather than grandson) of the
prophet. (The quoted parts are my translation from
Goldziher's French.) From this somewhat confused account,
it is hard to tell for sure whether Hisdai is counting the
number of generations to the present or just the number of
intervening generations. It seems somewhat more likely
that it is the number of generations to the present, and
if David were numbered 1, Hisdai would by this reckoning
be numbered 71, and Makhir/Theuderic would be numbered 75 in
his paternal line. However, the actual number of generations
is probably slightly smaller. (Goldziher 1884, p. 125, cited
by The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1903, p. 293, and Goode
1940-41, p. 156.)
Sources of information:
Goldziher, Ignaz. 1884. "Renseignements de Source
Musulmane sur la Dignite de Resch-Galuta." Revue des
Etudes Juives 8: 121-125.
Goode, Alexander D. 1940-41. "The Exilarchate in the
Eastern Caliphate, 637-1258." Jewish Quarterly Review 31:
149-69.
The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. New York and London: Funk
and Wagnalls.
Kelley, David H. 1982. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Two
Reviews" (second by Robert C. Anderson). The Genealogist
3: 249-258.
-- Don Stone
Todd A. Farmerie
In a previous article, ste...@baldar.clark.net () says:
> Meanwhile, I can't figure out who this "Guillem de Gellone' is
>the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" babbles on about.
>
This is William, son of Thierry. Unfortunately, the authors of Holy Blood
haven't quite figured that out either. Don't waste your time with that
source. It is invention, either modern or ancient.
Todd
Raymond Brown
The interesting genealogy I've come up with traces the Brown's back through Scotland and England to Hugues VII de Lusignan in France. From there, I trace it through la Marche and Quercy back to when Machir (Machir) was to have arrived in 768 meeting with Pepin III and Charles (Charlemagne). The interesting part is the intermarriage of the cousins through many of the nobility.
On Friday, January 5, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
> brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> matters."
> I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
taf
> Alan,
> The interesting genealogy I've come up with traces the Brown's back through
> Scotland and England to Hugues VII de Lusignan in France. From there, I trace
> it through la Marche and Quercy back to when Machir (Machir) was to have
> arrived in 768 meeting with Pepin III and Charles (Charlemagne). The interesting
> part is the intermarriage of the cousins through many of the nobility.
What is the basis for a Scottish Brown family being descended from Hugh VII of Lusignan? I do hope there is more to it than that the latter was nicknamed 'le Brun'.
As to Hugh being descended from Makhir, there is no such descent. Even were Hugh to descend from Thierry (and I am unaware of such a descent), Zuckerman's theory that Makhir was the same as Thierry was wishful thinking without sound foundation.
taf
Peter Stewart
Lusignan, through his paternal grandmother, from Thierry. However, this
is derived from a mistake by Léon Levillain in 1938 making the wife of
Vulgrin I of Angoulême into a daughter of Thierry's grandson Bernard -
Vulgrin's wife (often misnamed Regilinde) was endowed with Agen by her
brother William of Toulouse, whom Levillain wrongly identified as
Bernard's son.
It's interesting that the poster traced his Brown ancestry to Hugues VII
rather than to Hugues VIII or any later Lusignan - presumably this
indicates that the line was traced through one of Hugues VII's other
children.
Peter Stewart
adriancombe
> > A line of descent can be traced from Thierry
> > (Theodoric), Count of Autun in the eighth century, to (among
> > many others) Eleanor of Aquitaine:
> >
> > brief note on "The Jewish kings or princes of Narbonne" (pp.
> > 76-77). He refers to the work of Zuckerman who proposes an
> > identification of Makhir, a Jewish prince of the house of David,
> > with Thierry (Theoderic). Apparently Zuckerman's thesis has
> > received favorable comment from Professors Salo W. Baron and
> > David H. Kelley. Wagner concludes "Further evaluation and
> > possible fascinating extensions of these possibilities must
> > await analysis by authorities on the various aspects of these
> > matters."
> >
> > I have been browsing in Arther Zuckerman's book, "A
> > Jewish princedom in feudal France: 768-900" (1972). I find it
> > fascinating and erudite. But I am hardly one of the
> > "authorities on the various aspects of these matters" on whose
> > further research and commentary Wagner says we must await. Has
> > there been work in the past two decades which would tend to
> > confirm or cast doubt on the identity of Thierry and Makhir?
> >
> To my knowledge the most committed adherent to this theory remains David
> H. Kelley, who has (I am told by a mutual acquaintance) done a
> considerable amount of onomastic research and theorizing on this question,
> and adheres to a modification of Zuckerman's original theory. However,
> his work in this area remains, perhaps deliberately, unpublished. You
> Kelley addresses this question briefly, presenting the theory as a much
> better idea than the crap dished up in the book _HBHG_ (much as I would
> like to add Jesus to my pedigree). An earlier piece by Kelley, "Who
> Descends from King David?," _Toledot: the Journal of Jewish Genealogy_
> (Flushing, N.Y., Toledot Press) 1/3 (1977-8), 3-5, is not particularly
> informative.
> Note that some of the connection between the Autun/Saint Guilhem family
> and later dynasties are over-optimistically presented in ES, although the
> descent through Wulgrin of Angouleme is accepted as well-supported and
> leads, of course, to the Plantaganets through Isabel.
> Nat Taylor
pj.ev...@gmail.com
mike davis
Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
My amateur answer is no. Mainly because Theuderic was a real person, and we dont know if this Makhir
even existed. Is it a jewish name? There was an argument that a charter of Magnarius Count of Narbonne has a
squiggle which means its actually Makhir. Seems ridiculous. I believe that Zuckerman claims that Theuderic,
William of Toulouse, and his son Bernard of Septimania were all Nasi of the Jews at Narbonne. A much later
romance calls William court de nez, but that means crooked nose due to an injury when he fought a giant [!] and
his son Bernard was called Naso in a rather strange text called the Epitaph Arsenii describing the struggles at the
court of Louis the Pious, where all the participants have nicknames.
Zuckerman says that Isaac, a jew sent by Charlemagne to the Caliph, is the same as William of Toulouse,
who founded a monastery at Gellone and then retired to it where he died a monk. This seems a rather unlikely thing for a jewish exilarch. Despite this, this theory is still quite widespread on the net, and in printed
compendiums like David Hughes The British Chronicles 2007.
mike
taf
> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
>
> My amateur answer is no.
> Zuckerman says that Isaac, a jew sent by Charlemagne to the Caliph, is the same as William of Toulouse,
> Despite this, this theory is still quite widespread on the net, and in printed
> compendiums like David Hughes The British Chronicles 2007.
taf
Peter Stewart
"Bernard was the most illustrious, but to some of his contemporaries the
most notorious, son of William of Toulouse and Gellone. In court circles
he was called 'Naso', not so much as a complimentary recollection of
Ovid but rather, as Dümmler assumes, in consequence of a prominent nose.
Calmette accepts this explanation because the medieval epics refer
consistently to his father as "William of the curved (or, clipped)
nose." It could of course not occur to either scholar that the
distinctive appellation of both father and son originated with the
Hebrew title 'Nasi' "Prince (of the Jews)." Bernard's relentless enemy
Paschase Radbert stigmatizes Bernard as "that villain Naso summoned (to
office) from the Spains," presumably a reference to Bernard's
association with the Spanish March".
So Bernard evidently had a prominent nose because his father was said to
have had a curved or clipped one - this illogical effusion from
crazytown was refuted by David Ganz in 'The "epitaphium Arsenii" and
opposition to Louis the Pious', _Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on
the Reign of Louis the Pious_ (1990)p. 542:
"Despite recent attempts to show that the name Naso, applied to Bernard
of Septimania, proves that he was a king of the Jews, it is clear that
the name refers to Ovid, who was known to have loved a queen and to have
been deservedly exiled. The oldest extant witness of Ovid's 'Tristia'
was copied at Corbie at the same time as our sole manuscript of the
'Epitaphium'."
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Peter Stewart
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:
>
>> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
>>
>> My amateur answer is no.
>
> That is also the answer of the vast majority of professionals who have bothered to look. This is a case of classic fringe - too obscure, weird and couterfactual for many serious scholars to give it the time it woudl take to refute it, which leaves it with a false sense of reliability.
_American Historical Review_ 78 (1973) p 1441:
'It is not possible to ascertain why Zuckerman abandoned the canons of
historical method, or why he chose to accept as superior the evidential
value of fictional literary sources far removed in time from the events
under consideration and to relegate documentary evidence of a more
contemporary nature to inferior status ... It is tempting to speculate
that Zuckerman's vigorous though implicit reaction against the
"lacrymose interpretation" of Jewish history that dominates the
textbooks and his disdain for "majority historians" who have neglected
and degraded Jewish history overstimulated his imagination. More
fundamentally, however, Zuckerman seems to have become the victim of two
genres of source material from which it is very difficult to obtain the
kind of hard historical evidence that he sought. Efforts to secure sound
data about the course of events from 'chansons' and from 'responsa'
frequently lead to the pyramiding of conjectures. Zuckerman indulges in
this dangerous practice and then rejects more compelling evidence in
light of his previous conjectures.'
taf
> On 16-Jun-22 10:12 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:
> >
> >> Is Theuderic the same as Makhir?
> >>
> >> My amateur answer is no.
> >
> > That is also the answer of the vast majority of professionals who have bothered to look. This is a case of classic fringe - too obscure, weird and couterfactual for many serious scholars to give it the time it woudl take to refute it, which leaves it with a false sense of reliability.
> Bernard Bachrach took the trouble apply commonsense on this matter in
> _American Historical Review_ 78 (1973) p 1441:
Robert Chazan in _Jewish Social Sudies_ 35(1973): 163-164,
https://www.academia.edu/36866206/Robert_Chazan_Review_of_A_Jewish_Princedom_in_Feudal_France_768_900_by_Arthur_J_Zuckerman_Jewish_Social_Studies_35_2_April_1973_163_165
Aryeh Graboïs, "Une Principaute Juive dans la France du Midi a l'Époque Carolingienne?", _Annales du Midi_ 85(1973): 191-202.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1973_num_85_112_4805
Jeremy Cohen, "The Nasi of Narbonne: A Problem in Medieval Historiography" _AJS Review_ 2(1977): 45–76
https://www.academia.edu/36098098/Jeremy_Cohen_The_Nasi_of_Narbonne_A_Problem_in_Medieval_Historiography_AJS_Review_2_1977_45_76
Nathaniel L. Taylor, "Saint William, King David, and Makhir: a Controversial Medieval Descent", _The American Genealogist_, 72(1997): 205-223
http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Makhir.pdf
I am sure there are a few others as well. The only prominent supporters I recall coming across were Iain Moncreiffe and David Kelley, both of whom had a tendency to view exotic descents with beer goggles.
taf
Peter Stewart
alias Naso for Bernard to a short one for the post above, I carelessly
and illogically misrepresented Zuckerman on this point.
He did not cite the opinions of Dümmler and Calmette as sequential
supports for his own theory but rather to reject them both in favour of
his absurd notion that the title Nasi became the pseudonym Naso.
My long note was about the obvious allusion to Ovid (full name Publius
Ovidius Naso), whose poem 'Tristia' bemoaning his exile (perhaps for
advocating non-marital lovemaking) was doubtless in mind when Bernard
was accused of adultery with Empress Judith. In this context Louis I's
contemporary biographer Thegan tells us that Bernard was the emperor's
godson, and elsewhere reports that Louis had a long nose (using the
phrase "naso longo") - so that in disregarding the link to Ovid and the
later literary claim that Bernard's father had a shortened nose, a
better guess for the origin of Naso would be the alleged usurpation by
Bernard of the emperor's place in Judith's love-life.
Peter Stewart
not remotely credible in the heir to a Jewish dynasty - it should be
noted that Zuckerman indulged in deliberate obfuscation if not blatant
deceit. On p. 122 of _Jewish Princedom in Feudal France_ he wrote:
"A contemporary describes Bernard as 'of royal stock' (de stirpe regali)
and adoptive son of the emperor."
The authority cited for this (in note 19) is Thegan, and the relevant
text is actually quoted although truncated as well as mistranslated -
this plainly states that Judith's accusers described Bernard as of royal
lineage and the emperor's godson, all lies (in the MGH edition here (p
222):
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_germ_64/index.htm#page/222/mode/1up,
"dixerunt Iudith reginam violatam esse a quodam duce Bernhardo, qui erat
de stirpe regali et domni imperatoris ex sacro fonte baptismatis filius,
mentientes omnia"). Zuckerman quoted this indirectly, from Calmette
rather than from a full edition, but left off the last two words.
One manuscript gives "filiolus" (godson) instead of "filius" (son), but
whether or not the godson part was false the words "ex sacro fonte
baptismatis" (from the holy font of baptism) leave no doubt that this
was not about adoption, and of course it would never have been claimed
by any sane courtier about a Jewish prince in the first place.
mike davis
pretend histories like the Holy Blood, which although probably not the first
is the most famous, often footnote a statement which begins with a
truth and then slides into fantasy, with a reputable source like Wallace Hadrills
Chronicle of Fredegar, which is clearly a deliberate ploy. The casual reader
will then believe that both the truth and the fantasy are supported by the quoted
source. Then this statement is referenced by later authors and so on, its a bit
like UFO writers.
mike
Peter Stewart
source, he would have been obliged to argue either that Thegan was wrong
about the royal lineage of Bernard being a lie but nonetheless somehow
right about his christening being one, or else that Judith's accusers
(including the imperial arch-chaplain Hilduin of Saint-Denis and the
bishop of Amiens) were crazy enough to fabricate the story that a Jewish
prince had been baptised and were believed by the court resulting in the
enforced cloistering of the empress and her brothers.
The misrepresentation of baptism as adoption, even apart from omitting
that it was called a lie, is an egregious lapse of scholarly decorum on
Zuckerman's part, and it is an embarrassment to many reviewers that he
was not called on this in order to prick his hot-air balloon long ago.
To my mind silence or unawareness in peer reviewers can be a more
serious problem than underhandedness in researchers. The latter is
usually due to zealotry for some misconceived theory combined with lack
of principle and incompetence in the gathering, assessment,
understanding and/or interpretation of evidence, whereas the former is
usually due to laziness combined with arrogant self-confidence and/or
sham expertise.
I long ago ceased to be surprised when secondary references given in
academic work turn out to be worthless in proving the point at issue, or
even in tracking down the primary evidence (if any exists) in question.